V. I. Lenin

Conference of the Enlarged Editorial Board of“Proletary”{1}

JUNE 8–17 (21–30), 1909

Published:Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 41,

      pages222.2-230.1.Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marxists.org)
      © 2004

      Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the
      terms of theGNU Free Documentation License.

SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE ON THE RESOLUTION ON AGITATION FOR A BOLSHEVIK
CONGRESS OR A BOLSHEVIK CONFERENCE SEPARATE FROM THE PARTY

JUNE 8 (21)

Itis said, on the one hand, that there are no differences
of principle, and there is a refusal to make open statements, and on the
other, there is talk of basic differences in the Bolshevik faction. Isn’t
that duplicity? At the general Party conference Dan said: Doesn’t everyone
know that Lenin is being accused of Menshevism? I replied: ReadProletaryand judge on that basis, instead of collecting
gossip. At the time, Maximov was silent. Nothing is worse than the absence
of open struggle. I say: Our unity based on principle has been disrupted,
you say something else, and yet you call Lenin Martov.... Why is the
present meeting illegal in Party terms? Members of the Bolshevik Centre
elected at the Congress are talking about how best to conduct Bolshevik
views. What is so inadmissible about that? In agitating for a special
Bolshevik congress you show that you have lost all faith in the Party
principle. We havealways stood for the Party principle, ever since the Second Congress, and
are now continuing the same line, while you are preaching a split at the
grass roots. There is also a pro-Party trend among the Mensheviks. We
believe in the Party principle and stand up for it.

Maximovsays that there has been no agitation for a
congress. Lyadov, Stanislav, and Vsevolod have spoken out with sufficient
clarity. Since May 1908, Lyadov and Stanislav have been agitating in
Russia. We have Stanislav’s resolution, which says clearly enough what he
wants.{2}This is a mockery of our faction. The Mensheviks have an
orthodox-Marxist, Plekhanovite, trend and the Bolsheviks also have an
orthodox-Marxist trend. Both the Mensheviks and we have the
Valentinov-Maximov liquidationist trend, etc. Concerning Comrade Maximov’s
statement, I repeat that what I said was inreplyto Maximov’s
words: “a fully Leninist-Plekhanovite faction is crystallising”.

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF OTZOVISM AND ULTIMATUMISM{3}

JUNE 9 (22)

Iwant to deal with the “idea of the centre”. Maximov has
mixed things up over the Kotka
conference{4}; this is how it was: if the Poles were in favour of a
boycott and my vote were decisive, I declared that in that case I preferred
to vote with the Bolsheviks. That was the condition I put in respect of the
Poles. At that time, the whole Bolshevik Centre was against the
boycott. The faction, how ever, was for the boycott, but there was no
split, becausethere was no group which wanted one. A year later, the faction turned out
to be on our side. There are some “Bolsheviks” who are afraid of hitting
out at the otzovists and of siding with the Mensheviks. At the conference I
joined with the Mensheviks against the otzovists. That is what you think
about the centre.

Thestory of the split as related by Maximov is a curious
one. Maximov’s papers say nothing about the centre but Mikha’s letter has
now been authenticated. The letter said that Lenin was conducting a
Right-wing Bundist line. That is in the documents. Mikha wrote what Maximov
is now saying. There is your idea of the centre. We got this letter from
our Caucasian friends, who handed their mandate over to the Rightist
Ilyich. Mikha conducted this policy in July 1908 with the participation of
the group. Maximov says that we shall confer with Plekhanov. Of course, we
shall, as we shall with Dan, and Martov in the
C.O.{5}It took a fierce struggle at the conference to get the
otzovists to be loyal. We confronted them with ultimatums. When Axelrod
read the point about military-combat tasks, he said:
“It is not hard to work with such ‘Bolsheviks’.” We shall not let the
otzovists into the Duma commissions, Where we were with Dan. Indeed! We
shall confer with Plekhanov, as we shall with Dan and Martov. You can say
as much in the press.

Inthe C.C. I confer with Marat. You, Marat, are a member of the
faction of divine otzovists. I am not talking about good intentions but
about the political line. I ask you, comrades, to give thought to what is
being said about Plekhanov. When Plekhanov speaks of his mistake in respect
of the trade unions, we are reproached for failing to repulse him. When he
is prepared to sacrifice his mistake, the question is whether we are
attracting him by the article against Lunacharsky or whether you are
repulsing the minority of the pro-Party
Mensheviks{6}and the orthodox-Marxist Mensheviks for the sake of
Bogdanov-Lunacharsky anti-Marxist propaganda. We have not made a deal with
Plekhanov against Lunacharsky, but we can tell you who is flirting with
whom. When Plekhanov kicks out Potresov, I am prepared to give him my
hand. This is not a new centre, but a new caricatured Bolshevism. We are
havinga replay of the old Rosa Luxemburg
story.{7}But the replay here is caricatured, and “Bolshevism” must
be safeguarded from it.

“Bolshevism”must now become strictly Marxist.

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY SCHOOL ON
CAPRI{8}

JUNE 10 (23)

Iam surprised that we are not yet bored with all
this. Comrade Maximov has no reason to be excited, because there has never
been a single split without extreme accusations, and split incidents have
always been confused with matters of honour. I remember the scenes with
Krichevsky in 1901, with Martov in 1905, and with Plekhanov in 1907—and
all of them attacked me with cries about honour. It is not a question of
honour, but of the fact that in the process of struggle men tend to
disorganise their faction and organise a new one. Take Lyadov as an
example. He has not become a bad comrade, but he is disorganising our
faction and trying to set up a new one. I think that Maximov is
disorganising those whom he believes to be Mensheviks. He has a perfect
right to do that, but he keeps telling us about Lenin’s being invited to
the school. The question of control is a ridiculous one too. We can’t have
that. It is clear that the school is a new centre, a new trend. Marat says
that he will not abandon his posts. You, Comrade Marat, have succumbed to
the factional fervour which is determined by the political struggle of the
“divine” Otzovists.

Whatis a faction? It is an alliance of like-minded persons within a
party. In the Duma, the party is an alliance of like-minded men inside the
Duma. After all, when a member of the Duma, like Khomyakov, goes over to
another party he does not cease to be its chairman. The same appliesto a faction in the party. The party alone can relieve you of the post
which you have taken up on behalf of the party. We are now quarrelling—it
is because we have no alliance of like-minded men. No one is encroaching on
your Party post and there is no point in bringing it in. We do not have a
split in the Party, but in the faction. The writ of our conference does not
run to Party posts. And honour has nothing to do with all this. For my
part, I am used to that sort of thing: this is the fourth time I am being
abused. We must recognise what there is: two centres, two trends and the
school as a fact. And when we group out, everything will be much clearer.

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE FACTION’S UNITY

JUNE 12 (25)

Iam not going to reply to Maximov; everyone is arriving at
the conclusion that this is our last joint sitting with him. We should,
therefore refrain from exchanging abuse at the last moment. That is
undignified. Marat says that he is being invited to kick himself out. When
Marat declared that he preferred to work with the anti-otzovists rather
than with the otzovists, his declaration was met with cries of “Bravo!”
No one accused him of setting up the break-away centre at Capri, his
statement on god-building was quite definite. He is wrong in formal
terms. For our part we did not take the division beyond the point where the
separate centres of like-minded partisans had already taken shape.

FIRST SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF BOLSHEVIK TASKS RELATING
TO DUMA ACTIVITY

JUNE 12 (25)

Vishnevsky’sreport is the first positive contribution we
have heard here.

Asfor the failure to send a delegate to the general Party conference,
Vishnevsky seems to be making a mistake. Poletayev said that the deputies
would arrive if Dan sent a telegram. Dan refused to do so. The conference
has suffered greatly because of the absence of the
delegate.{9}

Yousay that the well-informed
persons{10}should not be expelled. The way to fight them is through
publicity. More information should be given about them. They should be
grouped and characterised.

Thequestion of theProletaryEditorial Board’s secretary
attached to the Duma group. The secretary was not equal to his task and
wrote in a highly formal manner; Steklov is not the man for this job; there
is need for a man to do the spade-work. The information should be as
circumstantial as possible, otherwise all the promotion groups will be
quite useless.

TheParis promotion group{11}is a delicate matter. We shall support
Plekhanov’s line; the other Mensheviks take a very nervous attitude to
this. A rapprochement with the Mensheviks of the Dan type is hard. How is a
group to be formed? The Mensheviks will get a crowd in. Nothing except a
fight can be the result. Perhaps, in order to avoid a squabble the group
should be set up under the C.O.

Nothingcan be done in the Duma group without well-informed persons
from the Bolsheviks. For this we should legalise two or three men. One
suggestion is Vadim, and perhaps Kamenev.

Concerningthe participation of local organisations in the activity of
the Duma group. Broad leaflet agitation should be started. Definite
specimen leaflets about Duma activity should be issued. The revolutionary
Social-Democratic use of the Duma will be neither revolutionary nor
Social-Democratic without the influence of the organisations.There is need ofleaflets on the subjects of the Duma
speeches. This kind of thing will involve the organisations in the
work and give them an impetus. Up to now, insufficient use has been made of
deputies’ meetings. They wasted most of their time on debates with the
otzovists. There is also need forleaflets on the party grouping in the
Dumaand, finally,leaflets on the work of the Duma in
general. It is not only the C.C. representatives, but also the
organisations that should direct the Duma group. We must haveleaflets
on the meaning of this or that speech in the Duma. Take the question
of foreign policy. Our deputies were the only ones to speak. This was not
properly assessed. There is need forleaflets with extracts from
speeches. I see no other way for the organisations’ participation
except in the form of leaflets. The disorganisation is desperate, the
leaflet activity should be pressed forward vigorously. Criticism in foreign
newspapers is late. Parliamentary speeches will always say less than
everything. The i’s will be dotted by the leaflets.

Itis sometimes very hard for the organisations to send their
representatives.

Asfor the newspaper, there is only one condition: a majority secured
for us, but I do not believe it is possible to realise such a
paper.{12}

ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION “ON THE ATTITUDE TO DUMA ACTIVITY AMONG THE
OTHER BRANCHES OF PARTY
WORK”{13}

Considerablymore attention, initiative and effort should
be devoted to the use of legal possibilities (a sphere in which some
successes have already been scored) than has been done until now.

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF THE PARTY PRESS

JUNE 15 (28)

Itis, of course, impossible to destroyProletary. There is need for a popular organ, but the question
depends on various other combinations, for instance, finance. It is not
right to prohibit assistance for the legal press in such resolute terms as
Vlasov has done. I think it would be useful to publish a small magazine,
about the size of, say,Dal,{14}which the Menshevik liquidators are publishing.

SPEECH IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLISHING PHILOSOPHICAL ARTICLES
IN THE CENTRAL ORGAN

JUNE 15 (28)

Sincewe cannot foresee how the debate on philosophy will
develop, the question should not be posed as Comrade Marat has
done. Therefore all restrictions on the C.O. in this respect should be
lifted. I welcome Comrade Marat’s statement on the need of philosophical
articles in the legal miscellanies.

PROPOSAL ON THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR A NEWSPAPER OF THE DUMA
GROUP{15}

JUNE 16 (29)

Inview of the importance of Comrade Meshkovsky’s
statement, I propose that of the 1,500 rubles earmarked for legal
publishing, 1,000 should be used for the Duma newspaper.

SPEECHES AND PROPOSALS IN THE DEBATE ON THE QUESTION OF REORGANISING THE
BOLSHEVIK CENTRE

JUNE 17 (30)

Iagree with Meshkovsky. A referendum concerns all Party members, and
that is impossible to put through. Conferences are desirable, but they
should not be made statutory. I believe that the idea of periodical
conferences should alone be adopted.

Itshould be written that the Russian members of the Bolshevik Centre
constitute a collegium in general, without limiting their number to three.

Inthe absence of a Plenary Meeting, the Executive Commission may
replace theProletaryeditors and members of the Economic
Commission in the event of their leaving.

TheBolshevik Centre Secretariat Abroad, consisting of two persons,
shall be appointed by a Plenary Meeting.

{1}The Conference was called on Lenin’s initiative, and was held in Paris
from June 8 to 17 (21 to 30), 1909. It was attended by nine members of the
Bolshevik Centre, the supreme body of the Bolshevik group, elected by the
Bolshevik delegates at the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.;
representatives of the St. Petersburg, Moscow Region and Urals
organisations were also there. It was held under Lenin’s guidance, and his
speeches on all the main items of the agenda determined the character of
its work. The otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders ware represented by
A. Bogdanov (Maximov) andV. L. Shantser (Marat), who were supported by V. M. Shulyatikov (Donat),
representing the Moscow Region organisation. On several questions
G. Y. Zinoviev, L. B. Kamenev, A. I. Rykov and M. P. Tomsky took a
conciliatory stand.

TheConference discussed the following questions: otzovism and
ultimatumism; god-building tendencies among Social-Democrats; attitude to
the activity in the Duma among the other branches of Party work; the tasks
of the Bolsheviks in the Party; the Party school being set up on Capri;
unity of the group; the agitation for a Bolshevik Congress or a Bolshevik
conference separate from the Party; the split-away of A. Bogdanov, and
other questions. Lenin gave detailed information on the state of affairs in
the Party and the Bolshevik group. His propositions became the basis of
decisions adopted by the Conference.

TheConference resolutely condemned otzovism-ultimatumism as a harmful
and dangerous trend within the working-class movement; it sharply
criticised the philosophical views of the otzovists-ultimatumists, which
were especially strikingly revealed in the idea of god-building. Bogdanov,
the leader and ideologist of the otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders,
who had made an attempt on the unity of the Bolshevik group and had taken
the way of revising Marxism and substituting for it an idealist,
reactionary philosophy, was expelled from the Bolshevik group.

TheConference decisions were of great importance for the whole
Party. Lenin said that they gave great harmony arid completeness to the
political line which had been worked out by the Party in the years of
reaction.

For details about the Conference see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 425–51.

p. 222

{2}The resolution motioned by Stanislav (“Yer”,
S. Volsky—A. V. Sokolov) in the Moscow Committee expressed no confidence
in the Editorial Board ofProletaryand called for a Bolshevik
conference to elect a new ideological centre. The Moscow Committee rejected
the resolution “by every vote except his own”

(see present edition, Vol. 16, p. 53). The text of the resolution has not
been discovered.

p. 223

{3}Otzovists—representatives of an opportunist trend among the
Bolsheviks. Behind a screen of revolutionary talk, the otzovists
(A. Bogdanov, G. A. Alexinsky, A. V. Sokolov [S. Volsky],
A. V. Lunacharsky, M. N. Lyadov and others) demanded the recall of the
Social-Democratic deputies from the Third Duma and an end to work in legal
organisations. They held that in the conditions of reaction the Party
should conduct illegal activity only, and refused to participate in the
Duma, in the workers’ trade unions, co-operatives and other mass legal and
semi-legal organisations. Ultimatumism was a variety of otzovism. The
ultimatumists differed from the otzovists only in form. They proposed
presenting the Social-Democratic Duma group with an ultimatum that it
should implicitly submit to the Party Central Committee’s decisions and
should be recalled from the Duma in the event of
noncompliance. Ultimatumism was in fact a camouflagedotzovism, and Lenin said the ultimatumists were “bashful otzovists”.

Theotzovists were doing the Party a great deal of harm. Their policy
could lead to the Party’s separation from the masses and its transformation
into a sectarian organisation incapable of mustering forces for another
revolutionary upsurge. Lenin exposed the otzovists as “liquidators inside
out”, and declared a relentless light against them. He wrote: “Otzovism
isnotBolshevism but the worst political travesty of Bolshevism
its worst political enemy could invent”

(see present edition, Vol. 15, p. 357).

p. 223

{4}The Third(Second All-Russia)Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P.was held at Kotka, Finland, from July 21 to 23 (August 3 to
5), 1907. It was attended by 26 delegates, nine of them Bolsheviks, five
Mensheviks, five Polish Social-Democrats, five Bundists and two Latvian
Social-Democrats. Among the delegates were V. I. Lenin, F. E. Dzerzhinsky,
A. V. Lunacharsky and Rosa Luxemburg. The Conference was also attended by
members and alternate members of the Party Central Committee elected at the
Fifth (London) Congress. The need to call an urgent conference (two months
after the Fifth Congress) was due to the changed political situation in
view of the Third of June counter-revolutionary coup and the elections to
the Third Duma. On the agenda of the Conference were the following
questions: participation in the elections to the Third Duma, electoral
agreements with other parties, electoral platform and the All-Russia
Congress of Trade Unions.

Onthe first question, the Conference heard three reports: =

Lenin’s (against a boycott) and A. Bogdanov’s (for a boycott) from the
Bolsheviks, and F. Dan’s, from the Mensheviks and the Bund. The Conference
adopted as a basis Lenin’s draft resolution calling on the Party to take
part in the electoral campaign and to struggle both against the Rightist
parties and against the Cadets (seeK.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh...,
Part I, pp. 173–74). When their resolution was rejected, the Bolsheviks
favouring a boycott voted for Lenin’s resolution.

TheConference decided that at the first stage of the elections, the
Social-Democrats should not enter into any agreements with other parties,
agreements being allowed on second and subsequent ballots with all parties
left of the Cadets. At the second and subsequent stages of the elections,
agreements could be reached with all revolutionary and opposition parties
to fight the Rightists. But in the workers’ curia, the Social-Democrats
were not to enter into agreements with other parties, with the exception of
national Social-Democratic parties outside the R.S.D.L.P., and also the
P.P.S. The Conference invited the Central Committee to draw up the
electoral platform on the basis of its resolution on participation in the
elections to the Third Duma. The Conference heard two reports on the
All-Russia Congress of Trade Unions: one for the principle of the
partisanship of the trade unions, and another, for the trade unions
remaining neutral. There were four draft resolutions on the reports (a
Bolshevik, a Menshevik, and two compromise resolutions). The Conference
decided to refer themto the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee. The Bolshevik draft resolution was
based on the draft proposed by Lenin (seeK.P.S.S. v
rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 180).

Theimportance of the Third Conference lies in the fact that it marked
out the principles of the Party’s tactics in the new historical
situation—the period of the Stolypin reaction.

p. 223

{5}Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P.(C.O.)—the illegal newspaperSotsial-Demokratpublished from February 1908 to January 1917. The
first issue prepared by the Bolsheviks and partly printed by a private
printer at Vilno was confiscated by the tsarist secret police. Soon another
attempt was made to publish the newspaper in St. Petersburg. The bulk of
the printing likewise fell into the hands of the gendarmes. Subsequently,
the paper was published abroad: Nos. 2–32 (February 1909–December 1913)
in Paris; Nos. 33–58 (November 1914–January 1917) in Geneva. There were
altogether 58 issues, of which five had supplements. Lenin was the actual
editor of the paper, and his articles were the centre-pieces of the
newspaper. More than 80 articles and items by Lenin appeared inSotsial-Demokrat.

p. 224

{6}The pro-Party Mensheviks, headed by G. V. Plekhanov, opposed
the liquidators in the years of reaction. While retaining their Menshevik
positions, the Plekhanovites wanted the illegal Party organisation
preserved and strengthened, and on that point favoured a bloc with the
Bolsheviks. Lenin urged the Bolsheviks to move nearer to the pro-Party
Mensheviks, saying that there could be an agreement with them on the basis
of a struggle for the Party, and against the liquidators, “...without any
ideological compromises, without any glossing over of tactical and other
differences of opinionwithin the limitsof the Party line”

(see present edition, Vol. 16, p. 101).

The pro-Party Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks in working in the local
Party committees, and contributed to Bolshevik publications. At the end of
1911, Plekhanov broke up the bloc with the Bolsheviks. On the pretext of
fighting the “factionalism” and the split within the R.S.D.L.P., he tried
to reconcile the Bolsheviks and the opportunists. In 1912, the
Plekhanovites joined the Trotskyites, Bundists and liquidators in opposing
the decisions of the Prague Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

p. 224

{7}A reference to A. Bogdanov’s speech in the debate on the report on
otzovism and ultimatumism, which said that Rosa Luxemburg had sharply
condemned both. In an effort to cast doubt on her criticism, Bogdanov
recalled that in 1904 and 1905 Rosa Luxemburg had opposed the Bolsheviks.

p. 225

{8}The school was set up in 1909 on the isle of Capri, Italy, by the
otzovists, ultimatumists and god-builders. The conference of the enlarged
Editorial Board ofProletaryexposed the factional anti-Bolshevik
character of the school, stating that its organisers were pursuing “not
aims common to the Bolshevik wing as a whole, as an ideological trend in
the Party, but the private aims of a group with a separate ideology and
policy”. The school was resolutelycondemned as a “new centre being formed for a faction breaking away from
the Bolsheviks”

(see present edition, Vol. 15, p. 450).

Itwas opened in August. Lectures were given by A. Bogdanov,
G. Alexinsky, A. Lunacharsky, Maxim Gorky, M. N. Lyadov, M. N. Pokrovsky
and V. A. Desnitsky. Lenin rejected a formal invitation to go and lecture
at the school. In a letter to its students, who were insisting that he read
them a series of lectures, Lenin said that he could not do so because the
school had been “deliberately hidden away from the Party” in a
“remote foreign spot” and was of a factional character. He invited the
students to come to Paris “to study Social-Democracy”, instead of the
“separatistfactional ‘science’\thinspace” of the
otzovists and god-builders

(see present edition, Vol. 15, pp. 472–78).

Fora detailed history of the school and its characteristic, see
Lenin’s articles “The Faction of Supporters of Otzovism and God-Building”
and “A Shameful Fiasco”

(present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 29–61, 85–86).

p. 225

{9}A reference to the failure to attend the Fifth Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P. (All-Russia Conference of 1908) by the representative of the
Duma Social-Democratic group. The rapporteur Vishnevsky (I. P. Goldenberg)
said it was accidental.

p. 227

{10}A group of intellectuals acting as advisers to the Social-Democratic
group in the Third Duma, most of them liquidators and
revisionists—A. N. Potresov, S. N. Prokopovich, etc. Making use of the
fact that the leaders of the Bolshevik Party were in hiding and unable to
Work legally with the Duma group, these persons tried to direct the group’s
activity along anti-art lines, and this gave rise to the question of doing
without their services.

p. 227

{11}A reference to the establishment of a promotion committee for the
Social-Democratic group in the Third Duma. The Conference decided to set up
a promotion committee, and Lenin, who was elected to the committee, was
very active on it. In particular, he wrote his “Explanatory Note on the
Draft of the Main Grounds of the Bill on the Eight-Hour Working Day”

(see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 110–16).

p. 227

{12}A reference to the paper which was to be published by the
R.S.D.L.P. group in the Duma. Subsequently, from 1910 to 1912, the legal
Bolshevik newspaperZvezda(The Star) was published with the
participation of the Duma group.

p. 228

{13}This addendum was incorporated in point three of the first section of
the resolution (seeK.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 223).

p. 228

{14}Dal(Horizon)—a literary and socio-political magazine
published by the liquidators in St. Petersburg. Three issues were put out:
=

the first in 1908, the second and third in 1909.

p. 229

{15}Lenin’s proposal was incorporated in the resolution “On Legal
Publishing” (seeK.P.S.S. v rezolutsiyakh..., Part I, p. 232).

p. 229